Political Memes

This is actually a very interesting psychological phenomenon. I'm no psychologist, but stretching what I learned from "how to win friends and influence people" to the extreme, directly opposing someone's viewpoint generally forces them to defend it. By defending it, they rationalize the reasons why they adhere to the idea, and thus end up convincing themselves of their belief.

Your opposition literally only serves to force them to rationalize their belief, and deepen their belief in that thing.

It's fascinating, but stupid. In my experience, the most intelligent people I've ever spoken to will always take opposition seriously, even if with a grain of salt. When struck with an opposing viewpoint, they usually inquire about it, asking the speaker to justify their position so they can understand why they came to this conclusion. The mildly intelligent will then use that justification to tear down the person's belief in that system. The highly intelligent will then ask questions that cause the speaker to question their own beliefs.

But doing nothing more than asking specific and pointed questions about someone's beliefs, I have seen very intelligent and clever people, get others to convince themselves that they're wrong in what they believe.

Long story short, your neighbor isn't wrong, but they're also not exactly correct. The character of a person, IMO, is not in what they believe in, but how they react to adversity. Whether that adversity is political, intellectual, physical, or emotional; how you deal with difficulty is the content of your character.

If making people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, and women, equal, by granting them the same rights and freedoms as everyone else (including bodily autonomy, and the ability to live, vote, and marry who they wish), causes you to start to lean towards fascism, what do you think that says about your character?

If you tell someone that X is wrong, that just makes them X harder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

The use of more concrete, low-controlling language, and the restoration of freedom through the inclusion of a choice-emphasizing postscript, may offer the best solution to reducing ambiguity and reactance

There's lot of these chuds on reddit nowadays

You should have told them they shouldn't support preaching abstinence then. As if they think that logic traverses throughout situations as such, it means they are trying to teach preteens to have sex

You're not understanding it vor even trying to take it serious. No wonder voters are running ax from you.

If you constantly tell someone they are at fault for something because they are of a certain race, if you constantly deny them any of their achievements and say is because of privilege, if you constantly chastize them, don't take them serious and ridicule them when they talk about their problems, they aren't going to feel represented by and vote for you.

Voting for Trump isn't a rational decision, it's a emotional one.

You need to Figuren out where you went wrong so the elections became emotional instead oft rational.

The guy in the comic is not being bullied though, that's the whole point of the comic.

Can you point out the bully in the comic you replied to? Or in OP?

As a white person, I'd like to ask that you don't lump me in with them in any way, shape, or form.

Thanks!